In a world of technology openness is often treated as an imperative, something that has to be preserved or promoted as something inherently good. I’ve been a long time believer in this idea myself, but as I watch the evolution of technology I’m beginning to question its value and underpinnings. What exactly is it that makes openness worthy of a pedestal it’s often being put on?
Full story »
http://www.tech-faq.com –
- Login to post comments
Pawlerson
13 years 2 weeks 22 hours 4 min ago
what a bull
C'mon, such bull at fsdaily? The guy has no clue what's important in openness.
TDTwister
13 years 2 weeks 19 hours 34 min ago
You have no idea.
You have no idea what you are talking about. 95% of the claims you make are wrong and the other 5% fiction. For example the restriction of the universe or what you called the have the role of bringing balance. And I will use a different example to enplane it to you. So according to the law you can not kill another person (or animal in some countries) without commuting a crime that will probably put you in prison. While this is a restriction it goes both ways you can not kill but also not get killed. So the restriction works to your benefit also. Now can you please explain to me what is the benefit that the user have if he or she agrees to the restrictions pose by proprietary software? Yes sure in order live in this world you have to have to have restriction but you are not living alone you selfish person.....
libervisco
13 years 2 weeks 16 hours 53 min ago
One benefit of agreeing to
One benefit of agreeing to proprietary software restrictions can be that he or she gets that software and the features it provides, obviously. What is at question here is his or her freedom to choose proprietary software if he or she wants to, as well as the freedom of a software developer to offer software under such terms if he or she wants to.
This freedom to choose is more fundamental than the "four freedoms" defined by RMS because without it the result is being limited into an arbitrarily pre-defined set of choices. You don't have to like my choices, but I'm free to make them, and vice versa. When you put the moral imperative on a single set of choices according to a single definition you immediately cease to acknowledge the freedom to choose differently.
I don't get why is calling me "selfish" necessary or relevant.
Pawlerson
13 years 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago
oh my
You doesn't make sense. Does Open Source restricts you to choose whatever you want?
libervisco
13 years 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago
I'm not talking about Open
I'm not talking about Open Source in general, but the Free Software Foundation and the parts of the Free Software movement which believe proprietary software to be immoral. When you call a particular choice immoral you are saying that it shouldn't even be made available. You wouldn't say immoral things are fine, after all, would you?
Pawlerson
13 years 1 week 23 hours 16 min ago
The FSF is right in many
The FSF is right in many cases. I choose Open Source software over proprietary when possible. However, if there's no good OS project to achieve my goals I'm forced to use proprietary one. There are also some Open Source projects like mono which are immoral. The FSF statement that some proprietary software shouldn't be available on Linux is simply stupid and in this case I don't agree with them.